Sex-assault survey, Ohio kidnap, SANDAG and more

Sex-assault survey fuels more questions

In response to “Sex assaults climb in military” (May 8): We’re told a steep climb in unwanted sexual contact has occurred prompting much indignity toward the military based on an “anonymous survey of personnel and statistical research.”

Who did the survey? Was it properly structured and administered? Were the questions worded so as to yield valid conclusions about “sexual assault”? Were results statistically significant? Was bias introduced? Review by a credible third party could answer these questions.

Also, the piece cited only two instances of cases being overturned by the convening military authority out of 2,949 having been reported. Why is this seen as excessive, prompting calls for civilian intervention? The judgment of these generals is being publicly questioned without relevant facts of either case being presented. Doesn’t pass the smell test. — Richard Campbell, El Cajon

Selective amnesia

Like all Americans, I was overjoyed to hear of the rescue of the girls in Ohio. And like all who love to pontificate with the gift of hindsight, I too have an opinion on how things might have been handled differently.

What I find bothersome, however, is the selective amnesia of many who are calling to police actions into question (“Police face questions in kidnap of Ohio women,” May 8). Why, goes the cry, did the police not search the house earlier? Well, in a nation where the police, like all citizens, are held to the letter of the law, and where almost every adult and child over 5 knows the meaning of “Get a warrant,” the police had their hands tied.

Obviously, each one of us has an opinion on this matter, and I might not be able to convince everyone to avoid second-guessing and castigating our police officers in cases like these. But what I do know — and I say this as a father — is that when I thought my own daughter was missing, the San Diego Police went out of their way, and literally risked life and limb, to help my wife and me. They did not ask for thanks, nor look for it. My telephone call of appreciation was treated almost as if it was a bother.

I do get bothered when I get a ticket, and yes, I will be the first to scream police brutality if I am at the wrong end of interaction with the police, but that can never, ever, deny my esteem for our finest. Next time you see a police officer, even if you don’t want to say anything, just smile — and if you don’t want to smile, just think a positive thought. Someday, you might need her help. — Khaleel Mohammed, associate professor, Department of Religious Studies, San Diego State University

SANDAG’s priorities skewed

In response to “SANDAG to detail options” (Local, May 7): Maintaining fresh water in the lagoon will become increasingly challenging and expensive due to sea level rising from global warming. Why does it cost millions of dollars to see something so obvious? It seems SANDAG will do anything to spend TransNet dollars on anything accept the trolley extension to UCSD, which was already approved, but getting more costly with every delay.

The cost of delaying the trolley extension includes many hidden opportunity costs in addition to lost income from traffic. (Time is money.) Human suffering from the traffic, traffic accidents, and paramedic delays in traffic, as well as respiratory ailments from poor air quality are hidden costs. The most obvious cost is the cost of having to widen freeways that no longer provide sustainable mobility. Many UCSD staff are recent, graduates paying off loans who will ride the extended trolley to save the cost of maintaining a second family car. Finishing the trolley extension in time for the 2015 Expo must be the highest priority. — L. Patti Martin, Downtown San Diego

Fletcher consistent over the years

In response to “Fletcher moves from Republican to independent and now Democrat” (May 5): When Nathan Fletcher was considering running for the state Assembly in 2008 a number of longtime Republicans including former Governor Pete Wilson and myself backed him because we thought he was made of the right stuff.

I was in the audience or backstage for many of Fletcher’s campaign speeches and debates for his two successful runs for the Assembly and for his near-miss campaign for mayor of San Diego, first as a Republican and later as an independent.

Gov. Wilson and I backed him as both a Republican candidate and an independent because, while Fletcher changed his party affiliation, he never changed his values or his goals, which were to curb government spending, make the state more business friendly, and introduce innovative ways to educate our children.

As far-right political elements in this country persuaded the Republican Party to turn farther and farther to the extreme right, I saw Fletcher continue to adhere to the sound political principles of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan famously said when switching from a Democrat to a Republican, “I didn’t leave the party, the party left me.” And that is exactly what I witnessed with Fletcher. The Republican Party left him and the cherished principles of Ronald Reagan.

Last Saturday at the annual dinner of the County Democratic Party, Fletcher, who had announced as a Democrat, received a standing ovation — a far greater reception than any of the Democratic elected officials. I believe that was because they knew he is made of the right stuff no matter what party affiliation he chooses. — Marty Judge, Rancho Bernardo

Coronado: Where are the cats?

After reading about the city of Coronado’s dubious distinction of being the leader in “rat calls” in the May 6 U-T (“Coronado has lead in dubious stat: rat calls,” Local, May 6), we realized that Coronado has created this problem by unbalancing the laws of nature with their cat control ordinances. All cats must be kept inside and quiet which allows the rats to roam and multiply unchecked.

The County of San Diego designates cats as free roaming although the individual cities may create their own municipal codes. Coronado has elected to do so in code section 32.12.020 specifically targeted at cats:

It is unlawful for any person having control, harboring or having ownership of any cat:

A) To suffer, allow, or permit the cat to run at large upon any street, land, alley, park or other public place or private property under the control of another person; or

B) To fail to keep the cat is such manner that the peace and quiet of another person or traveling public is not disturbed.

We believe there is a better solution to be had by enacting a spay/neuter ordinance for both dogs and cats. Altered pets roam less and do not fight over territory. Just the natural scent of a cat outdoors keeps the vermin at bay. Spay/neuter programs have been proved to reduce municipal cost also. We can create a win-win situation for all instead of creating our own rat problems. — Robert and Marilyn Kingsley, City Heights

Twerking flap evokes ‘The King’

In response to “Students appeal punishment in ‘twerking’ case” (Local, May 7): I do not know anyone at Scripps Ranch High School. However, there were no guns, no knives, no fights, no bullying: just dancing. I do not understand how this merits punishment. I am a grandmother and remember when the adults were sure that Elvis Presley and his swiveling hips would be the end of our generation! — Patricia L. Giesing, San Diego

Reviewing the Second Amendment

In response to Bob Cordero’s assertion that “enacting laws that infringe on law-abiding American’s rights” do not make anyone safer (Letters, May 8), I suppose that a law against yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater does not make us safer, and is also unconstitutional, since it infringes on the right of free speech. Is that not a form of “speech control” as much as “gun control”? Please reread the “well-regulated” portion of the Second Amendment before spouting about how the right to bear arms is “an automatic individual right.” — Judy Haber, San Diego

Reader Susan Schwartz (Letter, May 7) is mistaken with her assertion that firearms don’t [insure] freedom. A brief review of our nation’s history might prove enlightening.

“The shot heard ’round the world,” which was the start of our Revolutionary War of independence, occurred at Concord bridge when British soldiers arrived to confiscate all privately owned firearms. They were met by Americans who were determined to resist the king’s tyranny and maintain possession of the tools of their survival and self-defense. Their principles were codified in our Constitution, after victory in that bloody conflict was achieved.

That principle goes back far as 480 B.C., when King Leonidas of Sparta answered “Come and take them” when the Persian emperor Xerxes demanded that the outnumbered Greeks surrender their weapons, or die. The Spartans died.

The pages of human history reveal how, time and again, it is force of arms that protects and preserves freedom. To think otherwise is to prepare oneself, and our society, for eventual enslavement to tyrannical rule. — John Turner, San Diego

Youth immigrants are caught in limbo

Rather than talking about qualities that make immigrant kids most resilient to the difficulties of integrating into American culture, as discussed in “Teen immigrant angst a factor in bombings?” (utsandiego.com, May 6), we need to address why anti-immigrant sentiment occurs in the first place.

Youth immigrants are caught in limbo, between their native and American culture, and we are forcing them to fend for themselves, to change their ways and conform to our societal norms at a time in their life when strong social support is critical to their development. This abandonment is particularly dangerous for Mexican immigrants, who are ignored from the discourse of immigrant marginalization. Arabs and Muslims are on the forefront of immigrant stigmatization due to the events of 9/11, affirming their human existence and experience as second-class citizens. However, undocumented Mexican immigrants have yet to be afforded the foundational human dignity of recognition and are simultaneously denied the freedom to talk openly about their personal experiences.

In the wake of the Boston bombings, we must acknowledge the harm associated with increased anti-immigrant sentiment and instead focus on creating an environment which embraces all immigrants for who they are: human beings. — Leah Lessard, Linda Vista